validate_compliance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only check but never states that the file is not modified, what permissions are needed, whether a file must already exist, or how failures are reported.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least sketch the validation result (pass/fail, error list) and failure behavior. It states the check's scope but leaves the return contract and error semantics entirely unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter. The description partially compensates by specifying that the input is a ZUGFeRD/Factur-X XML file, giving the agent format context, but adds no naming/path convention beyond the parameter name invoice_xml_name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Prüft/validates) and resource (ZUGFeRD/Factur-X XML file) plus the standards applied (§ 14 UStG, EN 16931). The mention of an XML file implicitly separates it from the sibling validate_invoice_pdf, but no sibling is named or explicitly contrasted.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to pick this over parse_invoice or validate_invoice_pdf, and no prerequisites (e.g. must the file be uploaded first, does it need to be a local path). Usage can only be inferred from 'XML-Datei'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.